Headcovering..........veil or hair?

Are you confusing christianity with word usage? Fact is baptistic does not mean baptist, but beleiveing in baptism, so do RCC and COC. The meaning of the words we use to define ourselves mean a great deal. </font>[/QUOTE]And we know that true scriptual Baptism is adult believers baptism by immersion. So to be "baptistic" to believe in baptism is to believe in true baptism. [/QB][/QUOTE]

Thats what the dictionary said, believing in baptism. being a baptist is much more then believing in baptism, as I've said, others who are not baptist also believe in baptism. [/QB][/QUOTE]

 

Not according to the dictionary. As I have already posted. Should I search more dictionary sites for confirmation? </font>[/QUOTE]And the dictionary is final authority on Baptist word usage? </font>[/QUOTE]This Baptist church sells headship veilings.

http://www.bereabaptistchurch.org/banner/PDFs/November2003.pdf

I know for a fact that most of the Sovereign Grace Baptist churches teach that a woman is to cover her head based on 1 Corinthians 11:1-15 as they have it in their articles. </font>[/QUOTE]I asked for a denomination, as a whole, individual churches can be lead by ones(pastors) ideas. A denomination is more official. </font>[/QUOTE]Did you check the website? These are a group of Baptist churches that call themselves Sovereign Grace. You can read all about them at the link. I believe there are ten or more churches in their listing. Not completely sure. You could probably call them and ask.

I wear it based upon the Word of God in 1 Corinthians 11:1-16, though not on a churches teachings.

Just because most Baptist churches do not teach the ordinance of the headship veiling does not mean it is not applicable. [/QB][/QUOTE]
I did not say it was not applicable, I was asking which denominations teach it. Not churches individually, but denominations, those who are so many it is not just s few pastors teaching it. So your answer still does not answer my question.

 

The denomination is Baptist. They are Sovereign Grace Baptist. They have a link that I provided and a phone number. They would probably be delighted if you called them.

 

They do not agree to disagree. They go out of their way to make it known that they don't believe it and look to start fights about it. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]I can testify that I have had very similar response to the headcovering by professing Christian women. I have had pastors wives yelling and screaming at me. One pastors wife called me a cult member simply because I gave one of the members of her church a tract on headcovering.

Another lady, a missionaries wife came up to me and told me I was a legalist and causing disunity. I never once told her a single thing about the covering. I simply had it on, that was enough to cause her to attack me like I was some sort of criminal.

To any other sister who want to ask me questions please feel free to pm me as you have been. I know that some are not comfortable discussing this topic the way it is being discussed here.

 

Wow, alot has taken place since I was last on here.

Rule 13. No cross posting. Do not post the same message to more than one forum.

I don't see where anyone has broken this rule on this thread. There was a thread on the women's forum started by another person and was closed because Rules 3 and 4 were not adhered to.

3. Show grace to the other posters. When someone disagrees with you, discuss it; but be
slow to offend, and eager to get into the Word and find the answers. Remember, when
discussing passionate issues, it is easy to go too far and offend. Further, if we are
"earnestly contending for the faith" it would be unrealistic not to expect at times to be
misunderstood or even ridiculed. But please note that your words can sometimes be harsh
if used in the wrong way. The anger of man worketh not the righteousness of God.
4. Personal attacks will not be tolerated. The board has an edit button enabled. We
encourage you to use it and edit your own words. Moderators and Administrators will be
visibly proactive in dealing with potentially offensive situations. Posts of a violent or
threatening nature, either implicitly or explicitly, will be deleted, and the poster's
membership revoked. We encourage personal problems with other members be resolved
privately via email or personal messaging.


And the thread ended with the moderator saying, if this subjects upsets you then stay away from it.

This thread was started by someone different and in a more suitable place - Baptist Theology and & Bible Study and only after the other one had been closed.

It would be nice to finish a thread without it having to be closed.

 

But I would clarify that most godly men who are solid students of the word disagree with that. Does it in fact teach women to veil? Or does it teach women to be under authority? That is a big difference. We must find the places in our culture where it crosses with their culture. Much in the Bible is cultural and we have to understand that. In teh OT when God told the Israelites not to eat a kid boiled in its mother's milk, it it was a cultural issue. Good study finds those things to transfer them accurately.

Yes she is submissive; No she does not veil; and yes she is teaching younger women and older women to follow the word.

The fact that headcovering may have stopped in the 1940s or whenever is irrelevant. The question is, What does it mean today. The women that I see wearing hats and veils are making fashion statements (many of them are bad fashion statements ). I think in our culture there are ways to communicate what Paul's intent was that don't involve veils or headcoverings. To me, and again with no offense intended to anyone, they are distracting and draw attention to oneself. I can't see that as the type of thing that Paul was encouraging.

 

We encourage personal problems with other members be resolved privately via email or personal messaging.

Walls~this doesn't always work.

Hey PastorLar~I'm impressed!

 

But I would clarify that most godly men who are solid students of the word disagree with that. Does it in fact teach women to veil? Or does it teach women to be under authority? That is a big difference. We must find the places in our culture where it crosses with their culture. Much in the Bible is cultural and we have to understand that. In teh OT when God told the Israelites not to eat a kid boiled in its mother's milk, it it was a cultural issue. Good study finds those things to transfer them accurately.

Yes she is submissive; No she does not veil; and yes she is teaching younger women and older women to follow the word.

The fact that headcovering may have stopped in the 1940s or whenever is irrelevant. The question is, What does it mean today. The women that I see wearing hats and veils are making fashion statements (many of them are bad fashion statements ). I think in our culture there are ways to communicate what Paul's intent was that don't involve veils or headcoverings. To me, and again with no offense intended to anyone, they are distracting and draw attention to oneself. I can't see that as the type of thing that Paul was encouraging. </font>[/QUOTE]It teaches both that the woman is to be under authority and to cover her head. I am not sure what you say is true that most solid Bible students see the veil as unneccessary. Most of the ladies I know who veil are solid Bible students as well. So there is probably no way of telling how many truly believe this is wrong who actually study their Bibles.

Not seething the kid is not about culture. Again no where in the text does it say anything about culture.

Well, I guess in a way it has brought me attention. It has brought me the attention of those who want nothing to do with me anymore and those who are unsaved.

It brought the attention of those who call me cult member and who knows what other names. These are professing Christians who have slandered my name where I live.

The professing Christian ladies in "conservative" homeschool groups turn away from me as if I am leperous. And the unsaved ask me for tracts, what church I go to etc. So, yes it is true that it does bring attention to oneself in some ways. Some negative and some positive.

 

It certainly is not wrong at all to veil! It shows reverence. You should not be made to feel bad for doing so.

Regarding the comment about solid students of the word... It is very true that pretty much all of those who study "academic" theology see this as NOT the intention of the passage. On that issue I'd agree with Larry. Wearing a particular item of clothing during worship is the kind of thing that Jesus said we don't have to do any more!

The only problem I could potentially see with the issue is the chance that someone would make too big a deal out of it - and draw attention away from the Gospel.

 

Just curious..... I read a lot about this "culture" thing. What determines our culture? The world? or the Bible? What about the Christian culture? (is it influenced by the world?)

According to our culture, it is OK for a woman to be a pastor, teacher, etc.. According to our culture, it is ok to be naked in public (swim suits, short dresses, low cut tops, etc...). According to our culture, etc... etc... etc...

As Christians, are we commanded to sell all of our things and give everything to the poor? NO... but Christ told the rich young ruler to and he couldn't and walked away sad. I wonder what most professing wmoen would do if Christ told them to put a veil on?

There are many verses that people just want to argue about. I think much of the debate is because they don't want to obey it, so they try to "explain it away". With the veil issue...I don't know. However, I would rather OBEY to the word to the BEST of my ability and stand before Christ at the Judgment Seat and say, "I did this because I believed you wanted me to ... I love you and since you died for all, those who live should no longer live for themselves but for Him who died for them and was raised again (2 Cor 5:15)." Wouldn't it be better to err on the side of too strict, than to sin against God?

Just some thoughts.

 

Thanks Mr. Meadows,
Your post was very kind. But, what shall I do with all of this information?

http://users.bigpond.net.au/joeflorence/hc.htm

 

Dear SisHCL~these same kind of things you've mentioned, happen to us when we stand in the chief places of concourse with a scriptural sign or picture of a murdered baby...

Thank you for bringing this study to my attention once more. I had put it on the back-burner. Altho' I do wear a bun-cover when I put my hair up, I don't cover, other than hats. I know a lady who wears a shawl to assembly & covers her head when there's prayer.

God Bless

 

The only thing I say to your post was AMEN!

 

Granny,
I am so glad you are out there witnessing for those babies. Jesus said we would be persecuted. Whenever I see those pictures I think I must help, I must do more to help unwed mothers. Thanks for doing that.

Good for you for studying it. Bun covers are good. I saw one I liked at www.plainlydressed.com I like the snoods too. They seem good for days when I don't feel like putting my hair up. I have a pattern that I copied from a Jewish ladies website. Just need to get around to sewing it. I think hubby will like it.

 

Daniel David, would you mind sharing what it is that your wife DOES wear as an outer "covering"


Charles Meadows wrote:
&gt;&gt;It certainly is not wrong at all to veil!&lt;&lt;

I don't think anyone here is saying it wrong TO veil, what most are saying is that it is not wrong-or a sin-NOT to veil.

The debate is: Is it a COMMAND from God, or a suggestion from Paul based on the time and culture when it was written. Some here feel it is direct command from God and obey it. Some here feel it applicable to the time and culture in which Paul wrote it and therefore is a matter of Christian liberty/free will.

Then the debate takes the normal turn to long vs. short hair, dresses only vs. pants, to color or not to color, long sleeves, short sleeves, no sleeves, coulottes, shorts, skirts at the knee or below the knee, the exact definition of "breeches", the exact definition of "full and flowing" which then gets turned into submissive vs unsubmissive/feminist.

Headcoveredlady wrote:
&gt;&gt;No, Dina it certainly does not. What makes someone saved is the blood of Jesus Christ.&lt;&lt;

Yes, and I agree.

&gt;&gt;Also, the last time this was discussed you and I were discussing this. I was reading every one of your posts with interest as you seemed to be discussing the issue at hand and not side topics. I was enjoying discussing it with you, I felt no ill-will towards you or anger. Thank you for that, I think that was in November.&lt;&lt;

Yes, it was in Nov. Nor was I feeling ill will towards you. But, as I mentioned, whether it was your intention or not, you came across with the implication that I should shave my head because I was not feeling convicted by God to wear a veil. Or, more to the point, you were feelign that perhaps I was being convicted of it, but was being rebellious. I feel at that time you were attempting to place the conviction upon me, instead of leaving that matter to the Holy Spirit.

Sorry this is all jammed into one post. I left to go and run errands with DH and the kids after DH got home so I just got back and am catching up.

 

Headcovered Lady,

Wow, that must have been alot of work preparing that page. I own a number of those works, with the more academically reputable ones being TDNT, Schreiner, Murray and Waltke in my opinion. But the page author didn't really fully quote what alot of those men said about this passage.

But regarding the passage 1 Cor 11:1-15...
The point is proper worship. The Greek "kalumma" - veil, comes from the verb, "kalupto", hide - the same word from which Apocalypse is derived! The connotation here is a head covering - not long hair. The "power on her head" is "exousia", authority.

The best sense of this passage is to worship in proper apparel - in apparel that does not draw attention to a woman's beauty - her long hair, her fanny, whatever! What is the meaning of "because of the angels"? That's kinda tough. Most scholars think it has to do with the Enochian Jewish idea that the angels could be tempted by the beauty of humans! Not that Paul necessarily believed that but some Jews did!

Now clearly things are different today in terms of culture. The notion of being able to see a woman in a bathing suit or short skirt would have been unthinkable back then. Even some of today's more modest dresses that reveal a little bit of legs!
The important point is to worship in proper attire - not drawing attention to one's self, being appropriately submissive to God and husband. If that for you means a veil, OK. But we really do not have enough scriptural evidence to say that women MUST do this. If it were a matter of great importance would Jesus not have alluded to it - or would Paul not have been more plain about it.

 

Dina,
I hope you do not mind that I snipped part of your post. I wanted to answer this question here. No way in my heart do I believe that I can "convict" anyone of anything, neither can anyone else for that matter.

That job is completely the Holy Spirit's job. When I was convicted to wear it I read some compelling articles but they in themselves did not convict me, nor do I believe it was the author's intentions to do so.

Would I like to write exhortations to sisters to cover? Yes. Can I or anyone convict? No.

Just as there are some folks here who are vehemently opposed to the headship veiling I don't ever once think that they are trying to convict me not to wear it (not in the Holy Spirit sense). Maybe some are I don't know their hearts.

Now about the shaving part I think it best to go straight to the Scriptures.

1 Corinthians 11:5, "But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head UNCOVERED dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were SHAVEN."


This verse indicates that every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered is the same as the shaven woman.

1 Corinthians 11:6, "For if the woman be NOT COVERED, let her also be SHORN; but if it be a shame for a woman to be SHORN or SHAVEN, let her be covered."

This verse indicates that if the woman will not cover her head she should go ahead and get the second mark of shame which is a shorn or shaven head.

I can see no other way to explain these verses.

 

Yes, I enjoyed the quotes. We own some of the writings as well.

I was sad to see that Calvin's sermon was not there. Although I am not a fan of his I really enjoyed his sermon on headcoverings. He predicted that once the headcovering was removed the midriff would be exposed. I find it amazing that he knew that would happen once the headship veiling was removed.

Very interesting about the angels being tempted by humans. I personally think though that Paul was plain and clear in his letter about the headcovering.